Analytics Friday

The episode covers a coherent thesis about linking brand creativity to financial outcomes through a proprietary 'Creative CPM' methodology, but relies heavily on restating the same core argument across 30 minutes with limited new specifics. Corey articulates the problem (brand creativity lacks financial metrics) clearly and proposes a solution (pricing communication outcomes like media), but provides few concrete examples of how the methodology works in practice beyond a single mention of a '3.95 return multiplier.'

“brand creativity has not had a metric or a methodology to do that. So I've developed a methodology to do it which is a little bit more progressive.”

“We've done cases so far where we've shown for a very good piece of creativity you can have a 3.95 return on that spend if you can isolate it.”

The core observation - that brand creativity lacks financial measurement tools compared to performance marketing - is valid but not novel; McKinsey, Interbrand, and others have documented this gap. The proposed solution (financializing brand outcomes) is intuitive rather than counterintuitive. The guest mentions existing frameworks (MMM, MTA, incrementality) without offering a fresh theoretical angle or contrarian perspective on how these should be applied differently.

“brand creativity has not had a free market unit of account, um, since media has and media does.”

“there's been enough written about that and I think enough stated about that to suggest that the lack of brand growth and statistically speaking, I noticed at least half, maybe 2/3 of the top brands in the U.S. for example, have only grown by something between 0.7% and even under GDP in the last, uh, since 2009.”

Corey Mitchell brings legitimate agency and consulting pedigree (30 years in advertising, ran offices at Chiat Day, MRM, Arnold; worked with J&J and Charles Schwab). However, his current role appears to be evangelist/consultant for his own 'Creative CPM' methodology rather than a sitting operator running large-scale brand campaigns. He is more positioning himself as a thought leader selling a service than demonstrating active hands-on execution at scale in the current market.

“I started in Australia and, and I was spending five, six years in retail and brand, uh, moved into Asia, worked through integrated marketing and moved across to the US and worked into local and global, um, brand management and advertising from Chiat Day and tbwa.”

“I ran Shite Day New York, I ran MRM New York, I ran Arnold New York. Um, and then I moved into consulting and helped large advertisers like uh, J and J and um, Charles Schwab manage their agency portfolios.”

The episode lacks concrete evidence. Corey cites a statistic that 2/3 of top US brands grew 0.7% or below GDP since 2009 (attributed to Michael Farm) and mentions a 3.95x creative return multiplier, but provides no named campaigns, no specific brand examples, no client case studies, and no detail on how the methodology actually produced those results. The audit and benchmarking process is described only in abstract terms.

“I noticed at least half, maybe 2/3 of the top brands in the U.S. for example, have only grown by something between 0.7% and even under GDP in the last, uh, since 2009.”

“We've done cases so far where we've shown for a very good piece of creativity you can have a 3.95 return on that spend if you can isolate it.”

The host (George) asks broadly supportive questions that allow Corey to expound on his framework without friction. There are few sharp follow-ups or pushback moments. When the host probes on incrementality and unmeasurable aspects of branding, Corey is allowed to respond with platitudes ("the unmeasurable part needs to become measurable") without being pressed for evidence. The conversation flows smoothly but rarely challenges assumptions or probe for rigor.

“What are your take on these? Because, um, this focus on, on outcomes, it's difficult to measure as well”

“Is there anything question that I did not make that you'd like to, to take on?”